Judicial Branch

If the judicial, executive and legislative branches are supposed to accomplish the checks and balances in our form of government, isn't it ludicrous that the executive branch appoints (for life) the judicial branch? DON KUMFERMAN Ridgecrest

California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye told the Legislature on Monday that the closure of budget-strapped courts has deprived more than 2 million residents of accessible justice and left the state on the verge of a "civil rights crisis. " "A one-way, three-hour trip to a courthouse can't be fair in anyone's book," Cantil-Sakauye said in her annual address to state lawmakers. California court budgets in the last several years have been cut by about $1 billion, and Cantil-Sakauye has been pleading with legislators to restore more funding next year.

Re "And what about the courts?," Editorial, Jan. 16 The editorial illuminates the real issue regarding funding of California's judicial branch. Courts are not merely an afterthought; as you acknowledge in the final paragraph, state courts are a "coequal branch of the government. " In other words, they are just as important to our democratic system as the legislative and executive branches, yet the current administration implies they are seeking alms along with other worthy state beggars like schools and parks.

California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye warned Monday that the closure of budget-strapped courts has deprived more than 2 million residents of accessible justice and left the state “on the verge of a civil rights crisis.” "A three-hour drive to the nearest courthouse can't be fair in anyone's book,” Cantil-Sakauye planned to tell state lawmakers Thursday, according to a text of her speech released in advance. California courts in the last several years have been cut by about $1 billion, and Cantil-Sakauye has been pleading with legislators to restore more funding next year.

In your editorial on the state Supreme Court's ruling on the Lungren nomination ("Lungren Loses," June 24) you failed to remind your readers why there would be any question regarding the "independence" of the Supreme Court from the governor who appointed five of its justices. The governor who did more damage to the integrity of our state Supreme Court than any other was Jerry Brown. He appointed one of his top campaign aides and personal confidantes, Rose Bird, who had not one day of judicial experience, to the chief justice position.

The judicial branch of government needs money too -- to rebuild crumbling courthouses, to ensure jurors' security and comfort, and to keep justice available to Californians accused of crimes or seeking to make their case in civil court. How about issuing $5 billion in bonds that future generations will pay off with their tax dollars? Forget it. We've been down that road too many times already.

California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye warned Monday that the closure of budget-strapped courts has deprived more than 2 million residents of accessible justice and left the state “on the verge of a civil rights crisis.” "A three-hour drive to the nearest courthouse can't be fair in anyone's book,” Cantil-Sakauye planned to tell state lawmakers Thursday, according to a text of her speech released in advance. California courts in the last several years have been cut by about $1 billion, and Cantil-Sakauye has been pleading with legislators to restore more funding next year.

It is certainly praiseworthy that the Latino students in the Q&A article ("Initiative's Impact on Young Minds," Nov. 25) have learned to take pride in their political activism. However, it is also a pity that none of their teachers took the trouble to explain why Proposition 187 was invalidated. All the fervor, all the marching with Mexican flags, all the meetings in which they participated really accomplished nothing other than to improve these students' self-esteem. What worked was the true glory of the American system of government, the system of checks and balances.

The Times' editorial (June 3), "The Wrong Message," was indeed the wrong message. You would give the judicial branch of government an independence subject to no authority, able by its decisions to thwart the dictates of the people as enacted into law by the executive and legislative branches of government. Who are these super intellectuals who dictate which laws are legal and which are not? When and by what means did they acquire the power to dictate the rules as they see fit? Most of them gained appointments as a political reward and because they had a philosophical rapport with the governor who appointed them.

I don't know whether Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez have been improperly convicted of killing Jeanine Nicarico. But I do know, having been a prosecutor for more than 31 years, that Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland W. Burris' perception of his limited role in the criminal justice system, as nothing more than a mechanical shill who is compelled to preserve a conviction simply because it occurred, is far too narrow for my blood. If Burris recognizes that a miscarriage of justice may have taken place, then as a high-ranking member of the executive branch of government he has the right, and the duty, to communicate that view to the judicial branch.

Assembly Democrats may have hit on an ingenious way to make citizens take their jury summonses more seriously: Last week they passed a bill that would allow noncitizens to serve on juries. Suddenly, outraged commentators and bloggers who feared the loss of a key measure of citizenship were referring to "jury service" instead of "jury duty. " Although the news was generally reported accurately, some went overboard; at foxnews.com, for example, the headline said: "California bill would let illegal immigrants serve on juries.

Re "And what about the courts?," Editorial, Jan. 16 The editorial illuminates the real issue regarding funding of California's judicial branch. Courts are not merely an afterthought; as you acknowledge in the final paragraph, state courts are a "coequal branch of the government. " In other words, they are just as important to our democratic system as the legislative and executive branches, yet the current administration implies they are seeking alms along with other worthy state beggars like schools and parks.

WASHINGTON - Chief JusticeJohn G. Roberts Jr.considers it an insult when he hears it said that he and the justices are playing politics. He has always insisted his sole duty was to decide the law, not to pick the political winners. Until this week, however, not many were inclined to believe him. Those on the left - and the right - were convinced they could expect Roberts to be a reliable vote on the conservative side. But no more. The chief justice took control of two of the biggest politically charged cases in a decade, involving the Affordable Care Act and Arizona's immigration law, and he fashioned careful, lawyerly rulings that resulted in victories for the Obama administration.

Does Anwar Awlaki deserve to die? Would it be good for America and the world if, through some combination of fate, luck, justice and the arsenal of democracy, his heart stopped beating tomorrow? Does Barack Obama have America's best interests at heart when he endeavors to make that happen? The answer to all of these questions is, as far as I can tell, yes. According to any number of credible reports, the U.S.-born Awlaki is arguably the leading Al Qaeda propagandist in the world.

When you don't win an argument on the merits, change the subject. That seems to be the favorite tactic of groups opposed to marriage equality for same-sex couples. Last week, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that Proposition 8, California's voter-approved amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman, was unconstitutional. So now the opponents of same-sex marriage, who didn't win on the facts of the case, have found something else to argue about. Citing reports that Walker is gay, Proposition 8's supporters are insisting that their case didn't get a fair trial because someone who is gay couldn't rule on the case without bias.

State Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who on Wednesday announced his retirement, is best known to many Californians as the author of the 2008 opinion recognizing same-sex marriage, and that's no surprise. It was a groundbreaking ruling that continues to reverberate today, even after — especially after — a majority of voters partially overturned it six months later by passing Proposition 8. Some may remember him as the courageous trial judge who in 1981 rejected the decision by the Los Angeles County district attorney to drop charges against accused Hillside Strangler Angelo Buono.

Never before has impeachment loomed so large on Congress' agenda. For the second time in as many years, the House has just invoked its impeachment powers and accused a life-tenured federal judge, Alcee L. Hastings of Florida, of "high crimes and misdemeanors." One jurist, U.S. District Judge Harry E. Claiborne of Nevada, was convicted by the Senate in 1986 and removed from the bench.

IT'S THAT TIME of year, when the drones of corporate America gather their No. 2 pencils and call over to human resources for all the personnel files. The dirty little secret (or maybe it's not so secret) is that managers resent these yearly job performance evaluations as much as employees do. But why let the private sector have all the fun?

The judicial branch of government needs money too -- to rebuild crumbling courthouses, to ensure jurors' security and comfort, and to keep justice available to Californians accused of crimes or seeking to make their case in civil court. How about issuing $5 billion in bonds that future generations will pay off with their tax dollars? Forget it. We've been down that road too many times already.

IN a media world where frightened editors worry about ever-more fickle readers, viewers and Web surfers, it takes a courageous journalist to approach the boss with an idea for a story on political "process." Today's news must be hot and a pitch for a story on a vague, bland concept that doesn't instantly translate into "hits" takes some amount of guts, believe it or not. Still, despite the demands of the news business, process is important. Often it's everything, as John W.